DICKENSON v. DICKENSON, 6 N.C. 279 (1813) DICKENSON v. DICKENSON.Supreme Court of North Carolina June Term, 1813. Where an absolute deed is made, parol evidence is not admissible to prove that the deed was made under any special trust, and that a valuable consideration was not paid. THE BILL charged that David Dickenson, the elder, in 1782 conveyed by deed a slave to Shadrack Dickenson, which (280) deed, on its face, purported to be absolute and made for a valuable consideration, whereas, in truth, the deed was made in trust for the benefit of David, and under an agreement on the part of Shadrack that the slave should be conveyed and delivered to David, or to such person as he should at any time direct.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed DICKENSON v. DICKENSON, 6 N.C. 279 (1813). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
DICKENSONv. DICKENSON,6 N.C. 279(1813)
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Where an absolute deed is made, parol evidence is not admissible to prove that the deed was made under any special trust, and that a valuable consideration was not paid.
THE BILL charged that David Dickenson, the elder, in 1782 conveyed by deed a slave to Shadrack Dickenson, which (280) deed, on its face, purported to be absolute and made for a valuable consideration, whereas, in truth, the deed was made in trust for the benefit of David, and under an agreement on the part of Shadrack that the slave should be conveyed and delivered to David, or to such person as he should at any time direct. The bill further charged that no consideration was paid, and that the complainant being a judgment creditor of David's, the latter did, in 1810, assign all his right in the said slave to him; of which assignment Shadrack had notice, but refused to give up the property, insisting that he was an absolute purchaser for valuable consideration.
The answer denied the trust, averred a valuable consideration to have been paid, and alleged that the transaction was an absolute sale and purchase.
The only question submitted to the decision of this Court was, whether parol evidence was admissible to show that the deed was made under the trust specified in the bill, and that a valuable consideration was not paid.
TAYLOR, C.J.
The Court have looked into the cases ofSmith v. Williams,5 N.C. 426, andStreator v. Jones, id., 449, heretofore decided, and are of opinion that this case is governed by them, and that, consequently, it is not competent for the plaintiff to give parol evidence for either of the purposes stated in the case.Cited: Bonham v. Craig,80 N.C. 229.Page 201
(281)